What do you think?
Rate this book
Scripture And Tradition: A Survey Of The Controversy
Many Catholics were doubtless somewhat surprised that the subject of Scripture and Tradition should be the occasion for so much discussion at the Second Vatican Council. For years now, some of the best theological minds in the Church have been wrestling with the question of what the Church means when she replies, "Scripture and Tradition!" to the Protestant "Scriptura Sola!"
This work is a summary of the whole question and of the issues involved in the writings that have appeared in the past few years. First, the question is precisely stated in the Is there a constitutive tradition, that is, are there truths in tradition which are not in Holy Scripture? Each side is then allowed to speak for itself and to present the historical and doctrinal evidence in support of that position. Finally, the two answers are compared in order to see where the real difference of opinion is, and from this examination an indication emerges as to where the solution of the problem would seem to lie.
Brother Gabriel provides the reader with the background that is indispensable for the understanding of one of the most crucial theological controversies in our day, and his book should be part of any serious ecumenical library.
This work is a summary of the whole question and of the issues involved in the writings that have appeared in the past few years. First, the question is precisely stated in the Is there a constitutive tradition, that is, are there truths in tradition which are not in Holy Scripture? Each side is then allowed to speak for itself and to present the historical and doctrinal evidence in support of that position. Finally, the two answers are compared in order to see where the real difference of opinion is, and from this examination an indication emerges as to where the solution of the problem would seem to lie.
Brother Gabriel provides the reader with the background that is indispensable for the understanding of one of the most crucial theological controversies in our day, and his book should be part of any serious ecumenical library.
126 pages, Paperback
Published July 14, 2012
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
February 10, 2026
A summary of the ‘state of the question’ as it was in 1964, when the book was published.
The focus of the book is the question of whether Scripture is “materially sufficient.” Catholics believe that revelation is contained in Scripture + (Apostolic) Tradition, but if Scripture is materially sufficient, then that would mean that ALL of revelation can be found in each source. That would mean that revelation is potentially totally in Scripture, and thus the Catholic position would seem much closer to the Protestant view which insists that the bible alone contains revelation.
This is a controversial issue for Catholics, which was argued with considerable detail and energy in the era before Vatican II (ie prior to 1962). The book does well to present the contours of that argument, with a detailed bibliography and notes. That makes it a good resource for readers interested in clarifying the position prior to 1962.
However, since Vatican II, there has been further research and theological opinion on this issue. Some even now claim that Vatican II itself expressed a view on the matter. Obviously, the text cannot cover those issues which arose after it was published, so the age of the book makes it a limited contribution to the debate as it is today.
One weakness with the presentation is that the author is essentially arguing for a conciliatory position that unites both sides. It’s always commendable to see if what looks like a diametrically opposite argument can be dissolved into agreement. But the zeal to achieve agreement means that the book sometimes ignores a few issues which are arguably relevant.
For example, on pages 70-71 it deals with the “classic” argument for the insufficiency of Scripture. That is the argument that the Canon of Scripture is a revelation from God which cannot be found in the text of the bible. Therefore Scripture is incomplete as a source of Revelation and the Apostolic Tradition is needed to supplement it with the revelation of the canon.
What the book suggests as its way of reconciling the different views is that no one knows when or how the revelation of the canon occurred, and that the important issue is that the matter was clarified by the magisterium of the Church, and it is that clarification which is communicated in Tradition. So Scripture and Tradition are necessary to understand the biblical canon, even though all of Revelation is still (sort of, somehow) in the bible alone.
That argument struggles to make sense. And it ignores the separate issue that pope Pius X insisted that revelation was completed (ie finished) in the Apostolic era. So how can there be a later separate revelation about the Canon? More worryingly the book’s argument risks turning the magisterium from an interpretation of revelation into a new source of revelation. That is a position that is completely contrary to 2000 years of Church teaching. It is also potentially dangerous as it would license the magisterium to say anything about anything and claim it as an ongoing revelation.
So there seems to be a hole in the book’s thesis, and it revolves around that issue of Canonicity. The question of canonicity has actually become the core issue in much of the ongoing debate about this matter. So its not surprising that the book is unable to resolve the matter in 1964.
Overall, this is a useful resource to study an important question, but it is limited by its age and by the fact that the book’s argument is problematic and arguably incomplete. However, the text of the book is well-written so that it is accessible to readers without any prior philosophical or theological expertise in the issues.
The focus of the book is the question of whether Scripture is “materially sufficient.” Catholics believe that revelation is contained in Scripture + (Apostolic) Tradition, but if Scripture is materially sufficient, then that would mean that ALL of revelation can be found in each source. That would mean that revelation is potentially totally in Scripture, and thus the Catholic position would seem much closer to the Protestant view which insists that the bible alone contains revelation.
This is a controversial issue for Catholics, which was argued with considerable detail and energy in the era before Vatican II (ie prior to 1962). The book does well to present the contours of that argument, with a detailed bibliography and notes. That makes it a good resource for readers interested in clarifying the position prior to 1962.
However, since Vatican II, there has been further research and theological opinion on this issue. Some even now claim that Vatican II itself expressed a view on the matter. Obviously, the text cannot cover those issues which arose after it was published, so the age of the book makes it a limited contribution to the debate as it is today.
One weakness with the presentation is that the author is essentially arguing for a conciliatory position that unites both sides. It’s always commendable to see if what looks like a diametrically opposite argument can be dissolved into agreement. But the zeal to achieve agreement means that the book sometimes ignores a few issues which are arguably relevant.
For example, on pages 70-71 it deals with the “classic” argument for the insufficiency of Scripture. That is the argument that the Canon of Scripture is a revelation from God which cannot be found in the text of the bible. Therefore Scripture is incomplete as a source of Revelation and the Apostolic Tradition is needed to supplement it with the revelation of the canon.
What the book suggests as its way of reconciling the different views is that no one knows when or how the revelation of the canon occurred, and that the important issue is that the matter was clarified by the magisterium of the Church, and it is that clarification which is communicated in Tradition. So Scripture and Tradition are necessary to understand the biblical canon, even though all of Revelation is still (sort of, somehow) in the bible alone.
That argument struggles to make sense. And it ignores the separate issue that pope Pius X insisted that revelation was completed (ie finished) in the Apostolic era. So how can there be a later separate revelation about the Canon? More worryingly the book’s argument risks turning the magisterium from an interpretation of revelation into a new source of revelation. That is a position that is completely contrary to 2000 years of Church teaching. It is also potentially dangerous as it would license the magisterium to say anything about anything and claim it as an ongoing revelation.
So there seems to be a hole in the book’s thesis, and it revolves around that issue of Canonicity. The question of canonicity has actually become the core issue in much of the ongoing debate about this matter. So its not surprising that the book is unable to resolve the matter in 1964.
Overall, this is a useful resource to study an important question, but it is limited by its age and by the fact that the book’s argument is problematic and arguably incomplete. However, the text of the book is well-written so that it is accessible to readers without any prior philosophical or theological expertise in the issues.
Displaying 1 of 1 review